If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Settling a debt

03-15-2006, 02:10 PM

Called an attorneys office to settle debt. Spoke to a paralegal. He
advised that this call maybe recorded. I then advised him the same,
that the call maybe recorded on my end. We went through the motions of
settling the debt. I gave him my bank card # and he informed me the
account would be settled. At the end he tells me he is not consenting
to the recording of the call, and hangs up. I only recorded to protect
myself. So if by not consenting at the end of our conversations. Could I
still use the tape if this for whatever reason, this comes back and they
atemp to recollect or collect more?

advised that this call maybe recorded. I then advised him the same,that the call maybe recorded on my end. We went through the motions ofsettling the debt. I gave him my bank card # and he informed me theaccount would be settled.

Did you also agree that your credit record would be cleared? Or
at least that they would report it as no longer outstanding, but
settled or paid off? You should have dealt with this.

At the end he tells me he is not consentingto the recording of the call, and hangs up. I only recorded to protectmyself. So if by not consenting at the end of our conversations. Could Istill use the tape if this for whatever reason, this comes back and theyatemp to recollect or collect more?

It seems to me that anything he said between saying he is not
consenting to the recording and the end of the conversation (that
is, hanging up) is something you CAN'T use, and anything between
you notifying him of the recording and when he notified you that
he is not consenting (that is, almost all of the conversation) is
something you CAN use.

Gordon L. Burditt

Comment

Called an attorneys office to settle debt. Spoke to a paralegal. He advised that this call maybe recorded. I then advised him the same, that the call maybe recorded on my end. We went through the motions of settling the debt. I gave him my bank card # and he informed me the account would be settled. At the end he tells me he is not consenting to the recording of the call, and hangs up. I only recorded to protect myself. So if by not consenting at the end of our conversations. Could I still use the tape if this for whatever reason, this comes back and they atemp to recollect or collect more?

I'm not an expert in this area, but here is my uninformed impression:

If you are in a state which requires only that the other person be
informed that the conversation may be recorded or in a state which has no
prohibition against recording, then you have violated no law by recording
the telephone conversation. If you are in a state which requires the other
person's consent, then I agree with Burditt, that consent was implied by the
other party's failure to object earlier and failure to terminate the
conversation earlier. So you should find out which sort of rule your state
has. That should be an easy internet search.

Whether you can use the tape is a matter of evidence law. I'm not an expert
on that even in my own state, much less yours.

Called an attorneys office to settle debt. Spoke to a paralegal. He advised that this call maybe recorded. I then advised him the same, that the call maybe recorded on my end. We went through the motions of settling the debt. I gave him my bank card # and he informed me the account would be settled. At the end he tells me he is not consenting to the recording of the call, and hangs up. I only recorded to protect myself. So if by not consenting at the end of our conversations. Could I still use the tape if this for whatever reason, this comes back and they atemp to recollect or collect more?

I'm not an expert in this area, but here is my uninformed impression: If you are in a state which requires only that the other person be informed that the conversation may be recorded or in a state which has no prohibition against recording, then you have violated no law by recording the telephone conversation. If you are in a state which requires the other person's consent, then I agree with Burditt, that consent was implied by the other party's failure to object earlier and failure to terminate the conversation earlier. So you should find out which sort of rule your state has. That should be an easy internet search. Whether you can use the tape is a matter of evidence law. I'm not an expert on that even in my own state, much less yours.

In addition, in the very few civil cases that I've been in as a witness,
recordings were not permitted as evidence. However, a witness can be asked
the contents of the recording (so it behooves the witness to repeatedly
review the recording to memorize it). I don't know why but the recording
was not allowed yet the witness was allowed to recite the recording or even
allowed to read aloud a transcription of the recording. Go figure.
Although the recording wasn't allowed, the witness was obviously allowed to
recount the conversation, and noting that their statements were made from
reviewing the tape gave more weight to that testimony. Noting that you are
recounting a transcription or recording of the conversation helps eliminate
suspicion of "drift" in your side of the story.

"Some states have passed laws making it illegal to secretly record a phone
conversation without both parties' permission. Twelve states have made it
illegal to record a telephone conversation without all parties' consent:
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland,
Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington. It
is legal to record a conversation in the other 38 states as long as one
party to the conversation (you) gives consent. "
(http://www.bcsalliance.com/y_debtcoll_recording.html)

So if you're in one of those 38 other states, you can record your own
conversations without permission from the other party. Of course, you will
need to be cognizant in which state the case goes to court (yours or theirs
depending on who files). From what I've read, the recording can only be
used as rebuttal evidence and is considered hearsay as direct evidence.
That is, you can't use a recording to prove what was said but you can use it
to prove that the other person is lying about what they claim to have said
(you get to use the recording to prove they are lying; if they agree, the
recording is not submissible). That doesn't change the ability to note
during your testimony that you used the recording or a transcription of it
to refresh your memory when providing direct evidence (i.e., when YOU
testify as to what you and the other party said).

Just because you claimed to have made a recording doesn't disallow
contesting its authenticity. If the other side lies, they will also try to
discredit the recording. In one article, the guy says that after making the
recording (which uses tape and not a chip which then he has to record using
another device) he keeps the recording going after hanging up and dials (so
the dial tones are recorded, too) the local time & temp number to put a
datestamp into the recording (since the recording device could be tampered
with to specify a bogus datestamp) or even calls long-distance to the
National Observatory in DC to get the datestamp and show the charge on his
phone bill. He wants an independent 3rd party to timestamp his recordings
that may be needed for legal rebuttal evidence. You also cannot start the
recording after the other party gives permission. The recording must
actually contain the prelude of the conversation up to and including your
request for permission and their acceptance of your terms.

Regardless of the stupidity of the paralegal, the attorney for which the
paralegal is representing will know better regarding permission and usage of
the recording, a transcription of it, or your testimony based on reviewing
the recording or transcription.

--
I am not a lawyer. Just offering opinions and experiences.
__________________________________________________
Post replies to the newsgroup. Share with others.
For e-mail: Remove "NIX" and add "#VN" to Subject.
__________________________________________________

Called an attorneys office to settle debt. Spoke to a paralegal. Headvised that this call maybe recorded.

I always take the other party saying "This call may be recorded" as granting permission to record it. If they meant to inform me of the possibility that they would be recording, the correct word is "might". Seth

Clever. What if the message is: "This call may be recorded for quality
control purposes."? Does that mean the other party has permission to record
but only for the limited purpose? What if you record for some other
purpose?

The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation. Please note that some of our forums also serve as mirrors to Usenet newsgroups. Many posts you see on our forums are made by newsgroup users who may not be members of LaborLawTalk.com